Why do we spend time on Emacs on Guile?

[Kim F. Storm]

address@hidden (Gerd Moellmann) writes:
> No, I still think basing Emacs on Guile is a very bad idea.

And I thought I was alone :-)

I really don't see the point in spending a lot of time on 
"Emacs on Guile" which IMHO seems like a pretty academic project.  

Emacs Lisp has allowed users and hackers to implement zillions of
brilliant add-on packages; what benefits (besides the academic ones)
will switching to Guile give us?

As Richard usually points out, our efforts should be on changes which
have a benefit for the users of emacs, rather than the convenience of
the "emacs hackers".  AFAICS, switching to Guile has _ZERO_ benefits
for the emacs users.

What about a poll...:

How many of the members on emacs-devel plan to switch to Guile once it
is available?

Why would you do that?

Have you ever programmed in Guile/Scheme ?  How much?

I doubt very many existing Emacs Lisp packages will be converted to
Guile, so what are the performance issues of not doing so if Emacs
uses Guile internally?  

>From the discussions on the list, it seems Guile's data model doesn't
really fit very well with Emacs Lisp anyway.

++kfs